Is NEPA supposed to be democratic?

by

This article on the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan raises this question based on a rather extreme case of intimidating government documents.  But it comes up on much simpler NEPA efforts where the agency states that the NEPA process is not about the number of “votes” received on a project.  My legalistic response is that NEPA is about getting the facts right to form opinions, not about the opinions themselves, and that opinions can be offered at any time based on any set of facts (or lack thereof).  But NEPA is also about providing both useable information and sufficient time for both the decision-maker and the public to understand it before a decision is made.

(I don’t know if there are many NEPA-nerds on this blog, and I don’t remember seeing any previous discussions, but I saw it was a ‘category.’)

Planning for fire

by

A pretty good layman’s overview of the issues in “the war against wildfire.”

I’m interested how planning can help, including for both regulation and restoration.  On the latter, this comment on the Nature Conservancy suggests a realistic approach:   “the Nature Conservancy and its partners are looking at a lot of different factors that will help them determine which 15 percent (at most) they’ll actually try to restore. The key, he says, will be choosing the land strategically.”  I wonder what weight is given to the factors of effectiveness vs. ecological implications vs. cost-recovery.  And I think the Forest Service ought to be having a discussion of these strategic considerations in a public forum when it revises its forest plans.  I’ve often gotten the impression that the agency intends to restore everything everywhere without the budget to do so, so it puts a priority on cost-recovery.

VIDEO: Robert H. Nelson talk in Wallace, Idaho

by

Nelson-talk-picReaders of NCFP may be interested in the video of the talk presented by Robert H. Nelson to the “Not Without a Fight!” Coalition’s conference held in Wallace on September 24th.

Here’s are the introductory comments I offered on the video at the NWAF! blog:

Editor’s note: The NWAF! blog will be posting some of the presentations offered at our “September Conference” over the coming days and weeks. We begin with Robert H. Nelson’s keynote talk, which was titled “The ecosystem management disaster.” Nelson’s presentation reviewed four (let’s call them) “governing images” guiding Congress’s public lands policies over the history of the American West, all destined for failure. He also offered a brief account of his “Charter Forests” model for reforming forest management in the U.S. If a personal word may be permitted, it was very edifying and a great pleasure to see this distinguished scholar move so fluidly and lucidly through this uniquely American historical story. The video runs just under 70 minutes. Enjoy!
— Ron

 

OP-Ed on Fire Funding by 3 Former USFS Chiefs

by

LA Times essay by Dale N. Bosworth, Jack Ward Thomas, and Michael Dombeck.

An “archaic method of funding fire suppression is wreaking havoc with Forest Service budgets, and it is also making it likely we’ll see more and costlier fires.”

And: “Thankfully, a sensible solution to this problem exists in the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act. This proposed legislation would finally treat America’s most catastrophic wildfires in the way it treats other natural disasters, meaning that funds required to fight severe fires would be drawn from a federal emergency account rather than borrowed from other Forest Service programs.”

Legalization Does Not Stop Illegal National Forest Pot-Growing

by

fall pot

Thanks to Bob Berwyn for this one and the nice fall photo, here’s the link:

FRISCO —Colorado’s legalization of marijuana may mark a new era on the state level, but some things haven’t changed. Each year, profiteering outlaws try to use public lands to grow and harvest marijuana, which remains illegal under federal laws.

This week, law enforcement officers with the U.S. Forest Service eradicated a major pot farm on national forest lands near Ruedi Reservoir after it was reported to the Forest Service by the public. After uprooting more than 2,600 mature plants, Forest Service officials estimated the value of the plants about $6 to $8 million based on the average value of $2,500 per pound.

Since 2009, 34 illegal marijuana grow sites and more than 65,000 marijuana plants have been eradicated from national forests in Colorado, but the agency emphasized that most national forest lands are safe and free of illegal marijuana activities.

Each plant is estimated to yield 1 pound of processed material. Crews removed the marijuana plants, dismantled the irrigation system and removed items left in a make-shift camp. The marijuana plants were pulled up and removed from the area. No arrests have been made and the case remains under investigation.

You Got Mail

by

Solv.2

Click on the image of the envelope above that arrived recently in FSEEE’s mailbox and take a close look. Any idea what it might be? A credit card solicitation, perhaps? Some other type of junk mail?

Nope. The envelope contained an official letter soliciting our views regarding the Kisatchie National Forest’s plans for prescribed burning. We get notices like this all the time; one of our jobs at FSEEE is to keep an eye on what the Forest Service is up to across the national forest system.

Our concern is this: How would a member of the general public who is interested in a project on national forest lands have any idea what’s inside? There is no clue that the letter is from the Forest Service. Not knowing what “Solv” is, it seems likely that many would toss the letter into the round file, unopened. Solv, it turns out, is a consulting company based in McLean, Virginia, that counts among its clients a number of government agencies.

The Forest Service, of course, has long contracted out tasks it is required to do. Think national forest campgrounds, for example—the fireside chat by a friendly ranger is a thing of the past. For-profit companies run most Forest Service campgrounds these days.

A key part of the Forest Service’s mission is to keep the public informed about how it manages our public lands—it is, in fact, legally bound to issue notices about its projects to members of the public who ask for the information. It would help if the agency put its notices in envelopes that say “Forest Service.”

Webinar at 12:15 Today MT on Wildfire Mitigation CU

by

Sorry I am late with this.. could not figure out how to upload from my phone. This is 12:15 MT about 20 mins from now.
Here is the link to the webcast. Log in as guest.

ASSESSING WILDFIRE MITIGATION OUTREACH STRATEGIES IN THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE
Monday, September 29
12:15 – 1:15 PM
CSTPR Conference Room, 1333 Grandview Avenue
More Info

by Deserai Crow, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research and Environmental Studies, University of Colorado Boulder

Adrianne Kroepsch, Elizabeth Koebele, and Lydia Dixon, Environmental Studies, University of Colorado Boulder

Abstract: Colorado residents, local governments, and non-governmental organizations are becoming increasingly aware of damages that wildfire – and especially catastrophic wildfire – can inflict on their communities and watersheds. Because wildfires are expected only to escalate in frequency and destruction in the American West due to regional demographic and climate trends, it is important for policymakers and water resource planners to understand how to best promote effective wildfire risk mitigation techniques among residents who choose to live in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). What types of wildfire mitigation information do homeowners in WUI zones receive, how is information distributed to them, and what effects does that information have on individual behavior? This study uses data from in-depth interviews and focus groups with fire professionals, wildfire-focused watershed groups, and homeowners in two communities in Colorado that have recently experienced historic wildfires, as well as a cross-jurisdictional survey of fire professionals in the American West, to examine programmatic efforts used to encourage homeowners to mitigate their wildfire risk. The results provide insights into constraints on individual and collective capacity, the effectiveness of formal versus informal roles for government, and other findings that may inform more effective wildfire risk mitigation policies in Colorado and across the American West in the future.

Biography: Deserai Crow is an Assistant Professor in the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Colorado-Boulder, where she works with Adrianne Kroepsch, Elizabeth Koebele, Lydia Dixon, Rebecca Schild, and Katie Clifford, all doctoral students in Environmental Studies and Geography. The Crow research group studies local environmental policy processes and the role that information plays in those processes, with a geographic emphasis on the American West. In addition to the wildfire-related research presented here, members of the Crow group are actively studying water governance, climate change, oil and gas extraction, wolf restoration, and environmental citizenship. Crow is affiliated with the Center for Science & Technology Policy Research at C.U., and is also the Associate Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism.

Check out our Noontime Seminar Series webcast page where we have past webcasts availabl